Oh, those crazy Ghost House guys. Just when we thought they'd never produce a good movie, they went the "big boy" route and delivered the icily fantastic 30 Days of Night. It was so damn good, it almost made us forget about previous DH offerings like Boogeyman, The Grudge 2, Rise: Blood Hunter and The Messengers. (OK, so their first flick, The Grudge (remake), wasn't too rotten, but damn if I can remember anything about it.)

So what will the Ghost Housers be doing with some of that 30don money? Churning out a bunch more video sequels, of course! Fangoria brings us the word on a whole bunch of upcoming stuff...

Boogeyman 3 -- Yeah, Boogeyman 2 hits DVD early next year. This one's Part 3. Brian Sieve (Boogeyman 2) is writing the script.

The Grudge 3 -- Toby Wilkins (Kidney Thieves) directs and Brad Keene (The Gravedancers) writes this "culture reversal" sequel.

The Messengers 2 -- Screenwriter Todd Farmer returns for this prequel -- that couldn't possibly be much lamer than the first entry. So that's good news.

Rise 2 -- Gary Jones (Crocodile 2: Death Swamp) directs and Ben Ketai (30 Days of Night: Blood Trails) writes this Liu-less sequel to the witless Lucy Liu vamp flick.

So basically someone at Ghost House decided to make a sequel to EVERY ONE of their films, regardless of quality or actual demand for a sequel. (Check out the Fango report for all the good news.) Here's hoping that the inevitable 30 Days sequel is done with some class ... and a budget.

Yes, there will soon be an Anaconda 3 and an Anaconda 4. But that's not the most amusing news. According to Moviehole, the back-to-back cheapie sequels will star none other than (ready?) David Hasselhoff! Yep, the Hoff will be starring as the hero in a pair of Anaconda sequels. (Logic dictates that Dave does NOT get eaten by a giant snake in the third film.) Co-starring in Anaconda 3: The Offspring will be Crystal Allen, Zoltan Butuc and (who else?) John Rhys-Davies. (Damn, John, did you burn through that Rings money already?)

Both of the flicks are being shot in Romania by Don E. FauntLeRoy, the cinematographer turned director who has no less than three Steven Seagal movies under his belt. (So I'm guessing a pair of Anaconda sequels would actually be considered a promotion for Don.) And it looks like the producers are sticking to the old "search through a snake-infested jungle in search of something valuable" schpiel once twice again. As if you hadn't guessed by now, both flicks will premiere on the Sci-Fi Channel before settling onto dusty video shelves for the next 15 years.

The original Anaconda (1997) starred Jon Voight, Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Eric Stoltz, Owen Wilson, Danny Trejo and Kari Wuhrer. The 2004 sequel -- Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid -- starred Johnny Messner, Morris Chestnut, KaDee Strickland and Matthew Marsden. So if Anaconda 3 and 4 star David Hasselhoff and John Rhys-Davies, then I'm guessing Anaconda 5: Big Snake Babies will star someone like Andy Dick and Skeet Ulrich.

Having said all that, I'll rent anything with giant animals and screaming victims. Monster flicks are my true Kryptonite.

Just when you thought there was little to no movement on the do-we-really-need-another-one Terminator 4, comes word from Moviehole that a couple of high-profile actresses might be battling it out to play the lead female. First off, take this all with a grain of salt since it comes via two websites called Celebrity Spotlight and GlobalArnold.com. Since I dig Clint at Moviehole, and trust his opinion, I've decided to link directly to his story (in which he provides links to the original articles). That said, according to whomever, both Rachel Weisz and Chloë Sevigny approached Terminator producers Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek at a recent party -- and, apparently, inquired about "the role." I'm not sure what "the role" is, but I assume it's the same character portrayed by Claire Danes in Terminator 3.

Additionally, they also claim that a "high profile hunk has already been cast as the male lead," which most likely means Nick Stahl will not be reprising his role as John Connor. No idea who that could be, but feel free to throw out guesses based on what we already know about the John Connor character and the words "high profile hunk." Fred Savage? Fingers crossed! Another, more interesting (to me, at least) note is that they also mention the following with regards to Weisz's busy shooting schedule: "She is already signed up to star in Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones and next year will start shooting Sin City 2 with filmmaker Robert Rodriguez." Oh really?

First off, when did Weisz sign on for that role (which, in all likelihood, would be that of Ava Lord), and when did Rodriguez solidify a shooting schedule? From what we know, no one is really planning post-strike right now, and even so, Rodriguez has to shoot his Barbarella remake first. So, has Weisz been officially cast? And seeing as she turned down a third Mummy film, what makes you think she'd be interested in a fourth Terminator film? Chloë Sevigny, on the other hand, is super sexy in that "I might kill you after we sleep together" kind of way -- which I really dig -- so go ahead and sign her up. All rumors for now; we'll let you know if anything more concrete materializes.

Now that we know what this whole Hollywood strike is about, a new list has been circulating which details all of the films (and their directors) the various studios and production companies have fast-tracked. Not all of these films will wrap production by June 1, 2008, but it does give us a clear indication as to which movies are taking priority. Interestingly enough, the list also confirms some details that (as far I can recall) weren't previously known -- for example, Guy Ritchie is directing a remake of The Dirty Dozen? For real? Another fascinating tidbit is that Fox lists the A-Team as one of their top priorities, however I thought that flick was stationed way toward the bottom of development hell. Also on that list for Fox is Used Guys, directed by Jay Roach -- although we were told production had stopped due to scheduling problems. Is it back on?

Some other stuff worth pointing out: Dimension lists Eli Roth's Cell as a pre-strike priority, even though Roth has said the script still isn't done and that it may be awhile before the film takes shape. They're also fast-tracking a Porky's remake, with no director currently attached. You superhero fans should be happy to know that both Magneto and Wolverine are on the list, as well as Justice League, Thor and Punisher II. Those that love Martin Lawrence in a fat suit, well, they're fast-tracking a Big Momma's House 3, without a director attached. And hey, Fletch Won is on there too -- with Steve Pink at the helm. Random sequel time: The Birdcage 2? Really? There's a bunch of untitled stuff on there (including one from Cameron Crowe and one from Jon Favreau), so who knows how many of these will manage to get things going in time. Regardless, it's a good chance to see what the next year will look like at the movie theater. I've included the full list after the jump (courtesy of FilmJunk); let us know what you think.

I wrote about the impending Hollywood strike earlier today for a reason; mainly, so that you at home will better understand the following bit of info regarding the much talked-about Transformers 2. So, before you read this post, you might wanna read the other one first. Done reading? Good. Anyway, Transformers producer Don Murphy stopped by his message boards last night to give fans a quick update on some of his projects, including that Transformers sequel. And in case you haven't figured it out by now, the reason why we're not hearing much about it (according to Murphy) is because the folks in charge don't want to make a move until this whole strike thing goes away. And if they wanted to make a Transformers 2 (which they do), it would have to be done prior to June 2008. Which, realistically, is impossible.

Murphy sums it up well when he says, "But since no one wants to be filming IF a strike happens, everything needs to be done filming by the end of May 2008. So this is affecting the lack of news about Transformers 2 at least for now." If a strike is averted sooner rather than later, I imagine Transformers 2 will be one of the first projects we hear about -- Transformers is currently sitting at number three in box office totals for 2007 ($311 million and counting), and you bet your ass the film will earn a heckuva lot more once the DVD is released in multiple formats on October 16. I'm sure a lot of you are itching to see a sequel, and I hate to say it but this impending strike could seriously delay that sequel from happening anytime in the near future. As always, Cinematical will let you know as soon as more word is announced ...

Thanks to two separate Cinematical readers, they informed us that Shia Labeouf apparently announced to the world the official title of Indiana Jones 4 during the MTV Music Video Awards tonight. And, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the title will be Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This was indeed one of the six titles rumored to be in the running back in August when six names registered by Lucasfilm were leaked online. It also happens to be one of the titles I didn't like so much, mainly because it reminded me of He-Man for the some reason.

Although I wasn't watching the awards show myself (Curb premiere, as well as Giants game on), SpielbergFilms.com is also confirming this to be true. Besides, it would be pretty odd if two random people emailed us the exact same tip ... and lied. And if Shia was fibbing, it's also an odd title to fib about. Regardless, this is what they're going with -- and it seems to mesh with all of the plot speculation, blah blah, about skulls and Gods and pyramids and kingdoms. Personally, I'd rather this be the last bit of info we receive prior to the first teaser for the film. I don't want to know anything except for the fact that this Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will play a major role. Even if I do somewhat expect Skeletor to now be the film's main villain. So what do you think -- good title? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will arrive in theaters on May 22, 2008.

Once again, more signs that it's a slow, post-holiday news day: Cinematical reports on fairly old Corey Haim direct-to-video rumors. It doesn't get any lower than this folks ... and I officially feel dirty. Help? Someone? Mommy? ShockTillYouDrop claims to have the official word that, contrary to a number of earlier reports, Corey Haim will not have a cameo in the DTV sequel for Lost Boys 2. I know what you're thinking -- the dude is back on the wagon. Actually, apparently not -- instead, they cite Haim's recent "immigration snafu." A snafu? There was a snafu? Indeed there was. According to another report issued by the MTV Movies Blog (oh, everyone is all over this puppy!), Haim's manager had called them to say that the actor was having problems when it came to entering and leaving the country. See, Lost Boys 2 is shooting in Vancouver. And, for whatever reason, Haim couldn't get there. But here's my question: Didn't his recent reality show, The Two Coreys, shoot in Vancouver? And, um, wasn't he able to leave the country for that? This, in turn, raises larger issues: Are our immigration officials prejudice against vampires? I don't know about you, but I'd like an official inquiry.

At the time of MTV's report, Warner Bros. was working hard to resolve the "immigration snafu." However, if ShockTillYouDrop is to be believed (and I see no reason why not -- they're usually pretty good about their scoops), the snafu (yes, I love writing that word) was not resolved in time. If Haim's tears were staged before, I'm pretty positive his latest tears were the real deal. No role. No money. Sh*t, I'd cry. Good news is that Corey Feldman is still signed on to shoot a role, and from what we hear, he's currently out in Vancouver doing just that as we speak. No word on whether Haim will be replaced by a Haim look-a-like (could it get any worse for an actor then to land a role based on the fact that he looks like Corey Haim?), but you bet your arse we'll be letting you know as soon as more info is available.

Since Monday was a holiday, I now present you with the rare (but often more interesting) Tuesday Morning Poll. Because Tuesday just doesn't get enough lovin' these days. So everyone seems a tad floored that Rob Zombie's re-imagined Halloween scored $31 million over the Labor Day weekend. Me? I kind of saw it coming. As much as audiences have been turned off by horror as of late (or, more specifically, "torture porn"), it's obvious the genre still has its fans -- especially those searching for some nostalgia. Tack on a director with a name (sort of), call it a re-imagining of the original, and people flocked to see it. Of course, this now means we have officially landed in the re-imagined era. If there's one thing that $31 million haul did tell us, it was that we should expect a lot more films to be re-imagined (or whatever the hell they're calling it) in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if work starts right away on reviving the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises in the same fashion. Heck, imagine how many rumor posts we'll have to write when they start searching for someone to replace Robert Englund as Freddy Kruger?

But it's not just horror that's caught the re-imagined bug. Next summer we're already in store for The Incredible Hulk -- a film that isn't necessarily a sequel to Ang Lee's version, but an updated, re-imagined thingy. Christopher Nolan has already found success with his re-imagined Batman franchise, and now it's just a "wait and see" game as far as what the future holds. And that's exactly what I'm looking to find out from you today -- what does the future hold? Are there other films that are ripe for re-imagining? And what's the difference between a remake and a film that's been re-imagined? Do you prefer one over the other?

So, I ask you: What's your take on the re-imagined era? And are there any films that you'd personally like to see updated and re-imagined for today's audience?

We were thoroughly sequel-ized this summer; just about every movie that made any money in the past coughed up a remake or a sequel. And because the target audience apparently isn't old enough to know about any movies made before 2003, it's all as good as brand new. (You'll note that few, if any, of this summer's sequels had a number attached to it, as in Rush Hour 3. All the better to fool the young-uns in the audience.) Four such sequels have tumbled down into my humble less-than-400 screen territory, so I thought I'd take a moment to discuss some of the rules of good and bad sequels.

1. If you're starting up a superhero franchise, the "origin" part in the first movie is pretty dull and takes up a lot of screen time. The second in the franchise is always better, simply because we get to dive right in without a long setup. Even a movie as terrible as Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (187 screens) improves upon its even more terrible predecessor.

Alright, all you movie hounds. We know you've spent all summer watching the endless slew of sequels, from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to Shrek the Third, from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to The Bourne Ultimatum, from Spider-Man 3 to Rush Hour 3 -- it's been one long, hot, summer. But how well do you know your movie sequel history? Over at the Guardian, they have a nifty little quiz up with questions that will test your sequel mettle. I scored 70% on the first pass, not too bad, I guess (hey some of the questions are a little tricky, I'm not that up on my Leonard Part 6). Go check it out, then let us know how you did.

Now here's a little movie sequel pop quiz for you: Can you put the three stills of each of these series in order?



More after the jump ...

I covered the very cool Texas Fearfest for Comcast's FEARnet last March, and one of the very entertaining filmmakers I got to chat with was Feast director John Gulager. (Goofy video interview here.) The guy all but promised a sequel, but since things were still in the very early stages, nothing was even remotely locked in or "news-worthy." (Actors and filmmakers talk sequels all the time, especially in the horror division, and lots of 'em just never materialize.) But here's some pretty excellent news for you Feast-hungry fans: We're probably looking at a pair of sequels!

While talking to Fangoria, Feast and Saw 4 co-writer Marcus Dunston (who was also at Fearfest!) let it be known that on top of the two new Feasts, we can also expect a veritable salad bar of sloppy gore goodness: "Feast 2 and 3 are coming together, with [director John] Gulager back ... with the vulgarities we've currently scripted, and if we don't get deported, we just may have the NC-17-rated monsterfest that was only hinted at in the first film." Dang, sounds good to me!

For those who haven't Feasted yet, I'll remind you that the Project Greenlight flick, while certainly not a flawless piece of genre gristle, is a fast-paced, well-cast, admirably gooey and perfectly enjoyable concoction. Despite the Weinsteins' uncertainty on how to handle the flick, I'd say it's definitely found a place in the gorehounds' collective heart since it hit video last year. Good to know that Dunston, Gulager and co-writer Patrick Melton will be back on board, at the very least. The retention of the original creative team gives one a little more hope than usual.

Although Warner Bros. decided not to debut anything Dark Knight related during their official panel, the studio staged an elaborate stunt outside by painting a phone number across the sky, followed by a message from the Joker. For those who'd like to play along without skipping to the end of everything, call this number: 1-800-395-9646. Follow the riddles given to you on the phone over at the website we talked about earlier today. Eventually, as you pass each step, the above photo will appear. Looks like Maggie Gyllenhaal ain't having such a swell day. And yes, that's Heath Ledger as the Joker with a knife up to Mags' sweet face.

As you move further along in the Joker's game, eventually you'll be provided with the first teaser trailer for The Dark Knight ... in glorious HD quicktime. It's taking a really long time to load the best quality trailer, but I got through pretty quickly with this link. As expected, it is the same trailer we wrote about yesterday (the one that was leaked onto YouTube) in which no actual footage is shown; just a fairly heated conversation between Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) and Alfred (Michael Caine). The Joker's voice pops on briefly, a Joker card flies at the screen ... and we're out. Stay tuned to Cinematical as we've been all over ComicCon and will share all the glorious breaking news as it hits.

Wayyy back in February, IGN claimed Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise were the major frontrunners for the three lead roles in Star Trek XI. Damon, of course, would be playing a young Captain Kirk, with Brody as a young Spock and Sinise as a young Dr. McCoy. Well, with only a few days until those much-anticipated Star Trek casting announcements are (hopefully) unveiled at San Diego ComicCon, IGN sat down to ask Damon once and for all if he had landed the part of Kirk. Granted, we're fully aware that if he did land the part, there's no way he would reveal that to IGN during a Bourne Ultimatum junket when, supposedly, director J.J. Abrams is holding out for ComicCon -- but it's always worth a try.

So what did he say? Judging by the title of this post, I have a feeling you already know. Yes, Damon chalked it all up to wild internet speculation and, while he'd be honored to play Captain Kirk, the actor claims he's simply too old for the role. Damon does admit that he's spoken with Abrams about the film, and claims the director is looking for an actor in his early 20s. On the contrary, Damon says that if they do the progression (meaning, in a future film Kirk is older), then "maybe I can play him." All of that being said, it's interesting to watch Damon and his reaction to the question in IGN's video interview. I once watched a show that pointed out the ways in which you can tell someone is lying, and based on Damon's movements, there's a chance he may be fibbing a bit in his answer. First, he swallows a few times, scratches his face at one point (a big tell), and looks down a number of times as if he's trying to think of what to say. While I'm fairly convinced he won't be playing Kirk, Damon himself didn't do a fabulous job answering the question. But you be the judge. Star Trek XI is scheduled to hit theaters on Christmas Day, 2008.

They're claiming that none of their films are ready yet, but is that the real reason 20th Century Fox has decided to pull out of next week's San Diego ComicCon? The studio was previously scheduled to hold a "star-and-filmmaker-studded panel" next Friday in the main hall, featuring exclusive first looks at films like Aliens vs Predator, Jumper, Babylon A.D. and Hitman. While practically every other major studio (Warner Bros., Paramount/Dreamworks, Lionsgate, New Line, Sony Pictures, Universal and Walt Disney) still have plans to appear, Fox has officially pulled out. Or have they? According to The LA Times, the studio was reconsidering that decision yesterday afternoon -- meanwhile, ComicCon organizers were scrambling to fill their much-coveted slot.

This hasn't been the greatest of weeks for Fox. Earlier, there was a whole big stink going on in Chicago over Fox's apparent snub of some film critics when it came to invites for advanced screenings of their films. From what I understand, The Chicago Film Critics Association has instituted a boycott against Fox releases. The boycott won't affect reviews; instead, they'll be staying away from additional coverage like features, interviews, etc ... Personally, I'm a bit peeved as well after finding out yesterday that the only Simpsons Movie screening happening in the New York City area (that I'm aware of) is taking place the night before the film will be released. And, as far as I can tell, the same goes for the rest of the country. So, while I usually like to have a day or so to sit with a film before I review it, I now have a few hours.

Whether or not this ComicCon pull out has anything to do with the aforementioned boycott -- I don't know. I do know, however, that Fox has become a major player when it comes to fighting movie piracy (they're one of the studios who wanted to ban advanced screenings in Canada), and so perhaps it's not a question of whether their footage is ready -- but, instead, has to do with them being afraid that same footage will be on YouTube within the hour. Oh, and I should note that Fox Atomic will still be attendance ... handing out raffles, or something. Yay! Raffles!

While folks frantically try to uncover the plot and title for Indiana Jones 4, IESB has arrived with some pretty big news ... if it's true. Up until now, we were pretty positive this would be the final installment in the Indiana Jones franchise, with Shia LaBeouf potentially coming back as Indy's son in a future spin-off installment. Well, according to a "very well respected Paramount studio source" LaBeouf has signed a four-picture deal to reprise his current role in three more Indy-related films. Not only that (and here's the big shocker), but IESB also claims that Harrison Ford signed a three-picture deal, meaning he'll show up (all old and whatnot) as Indiana Jones in two more flicks. Now I'd like to tell you to take this all with a grain of salt (which you should), but know that IESB says their source is "as solid as a rock."

The LaBeouf stuff I can believe, but I never in a million years expected Ford to sign on for more films after this one -- mainly because I wouldn't think Steven Spielberg would be directing, and also because the guy is getting a tad old. And do they really want to stretch this series out into seven films? The first three are such classics, and I have high hopes for the fourth. But three more?! They've got to be kidding. Apparently not. Of course there's always a chance Paramount will wait to see how Indiana Jones 4 does (as well as how much people like LaBeouf's character) before making the move on any additional installments. And there's also a chance Ford's contract only calls for cameo roles, instead of full-on stunt action. But since Ford has never been a "cameo actor," I can't see him agreeing to show up for five minutes to give his son a mission, then bail. Regardless, what do you think about three more Indiana Jones films? Would you be down for that much Indy, or do you want to wait to see the fourth flick before answering?